{"id":107350,"date":"1996-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996"},"modified":"2015-07-16T05:00:21","modified_gmt":"2015-07-15T23:30:21","slug":"state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996","title":{"rendered":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: Thomas<\/div>\n
Bench: A.S. Anand, K.T. Thomas<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGANGULA SATYA MURTHY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t19\/11\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nA.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nTHOMAS, J.\n<\/p>\n
     A girl  of sixteen (Satya Vani) was raped and throttled
\nto death.  This was  the gravamen  of the charge put against
\nrespondent Gangula  Satya Murthy  alias Babu. Sessions Court
\nconvicted him  under Section 502 and 376 of the Indian Penal
\nCode and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and rigorous
\nimprisonment for  7 years respectively under the two counts.
\nBut on\tappeal, a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra
\npradesh acquitted him. This appeal by special leave has been
\nfiled by  the State  of Andhra\tPradesh in  challenge of the
\nsaid order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  state the  facts of the case as put fourth by
\nthe prosecution:\n<\/p>\n
     Satya Vani\t was a\tstudent of  10th Standard.  She\t was
\nresiding with  her parents  in\tthe  village  Talluru  (East
\nGodawari District). Respondent Babu, a married youngman, was
\nresiding with  his mother  in their  house situated near the
\nhouse of the deceased. Satya Vani used to visit respondent`s
\nhouse  to   see\t television   programmes  as  there  was  no
\ntelevision set available in her house. Respondent developed,
\nin course  of time,  an infatuation  for Satya Vani, but the
\novertures made by him not favourably reciprocated by her.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  evening of\t 26.11.1991. Satya  Vani was sent by
\nher parents  to the house where her grand-parents lived with
\nsome errand.  While returning  from there  she stopped\tinto
\nrespondent`s  house  for  seeing  the  telecast\t programmes.
\nRespondent was\tall alone  then in  that house as his mother
\nhad gone  to the town to see a cinema show. Taking advantage
\nof the\tabsence of  anyone else\t in  the  house,  respondent
\nsubjected Satya\t Vani  to  sexual  intercourse\tby  forcibly
\nputting her  on the  cot. When she threatened that she would
\ncomplain it  to her  parents respondent\t caught hold  of her
\nneck and  throttled her\t to death. A little later respondent
\nwent out of the house bolting it from outside.\n<\/p>\n
     As Satya  Vani did\t not return  home even\tafter a song
\ntime  her  parents  became  panicky  and  they\tmade  hectic
\nenquiries for  her. When respondent`s mother reached home by
\nabout 10 P.M., she sound Satya Vani`s dead body lying on the
\ncot  in\t  her  house,\tand  she  immediately  conveyed\t the
\nfrightening new to her anxious parents.\n<\/p>\n
     Police was\t informed of  the matter  and an  FIR  under
\nSection 174  of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared,
\nand the\t inquest on  the dead  body  was  held\tby  the\t Sub
\nInspector of  Police. During  autopsy it  was revealed\tthat
\nSatya Vani was subjected to sexual intercourse and her death
\nwas due to throttling.\n<\/p>\n
     On 2.12.1991, respondent was physically produced before
\nthe police  by two residents of the locality (PW-6 and PW-7)
\non the\tpremise that  respondent had  admitted his  guilt to
\nthem. A\t letter\t which\tSatya  Vani  had  addressed  to\t the
\nrespondent  was\t  also\tdelivered   to\tthe   police.  After
\ncompleting the investigation, respondent was challaned.\n<\/p>\n
     Sessions court  found on  evidence, which\tis  entirely
\ncircumstantial, that  respondent had raped the deceased girl
\nand killed her by throttling. Accordingly the respondent was
\nconvicted and sentenced as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
     The following  circumstances were found by the sessions
\ncourt as  established firmly  by the  prosecution: (1) Satya
\nVani was  seen entering the house of the respondent by about
\n5.30 P.M.: (2) After some time respondent was seen going out
\nof the\thouse bolting  the door\t from outside:\t(3) Death of
\nSatya Vani  took place\tinside the  house of  the respondent
\nsome time  between 6 P.M. and 10 P.M.; (4) She was subjected
\nto sexual  intercourse before  her death and she died due to
\nthrottling: (5)\t Respondent alone  was present\tin the house
\nduring the  relevant time  besides the\tdeceased; (6)  Extra
\nJudicial confession  was made  by the respondent to PW-6 and
\nPW-7.\n<\/p>\n
     The Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
\nhowever, expressed  the view  that possibility of deceased`s
\ndeath due  to consumption  of poison, could not be ruled out
\nin this\t case. Learned Judges entertained the doubt that the
\ninjuries on  the neck  including the  fracture of  the hyoid
\nbone could have ben post-mortem injuries. Further, the extra
\njudicial confession  spoken to by PW-6 and PW-7 was to acted
\non by  the High Court due to certain infirmities pointed out
\nin the\tjudgment. Resultantly,\tthe High  Curt reversed\t the
\njudgment of  the sessions  court and  passed  the  order  of
\nacquittal.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel,  who argued  for the  State, seriously
\nassailed the  reasoning of  the High  Court for reaching the
\nfindings. When\twe perused  the records\t in the light of the
\narguments addressed by both sides we are of the opinion that
\nthe  High  Court  has  manifestly  erred  in  reversing\t the
\nfindings arrived  at by the trial court. We shall now advert
\nto our reasons.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. K.  Trinadahrao (PW-10)  of the Government Hospital
\nwho conducted  the post-mortem\texamination has recorded his
\nobservations in the certificated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Injuries\t are\tante-mortem   in
\n     nature.   Two    finger\tpressure
\n     abrasions were present on the right
\n     as well  as on the left side of the
\n     neck   placed   anteriorly,   which
\n     continued up  to the  root level on
\n     the  back\tof  the\t neck.\tA  fresh
\n     vaginal tear  on the  inner vaginal
\n     walls posterior  to  labia\t minora,
\n     fracture of  the right  hyoid  bone
\n     and extravagation\tof blood on both
\n     sides of  the neck were found. Both
\n     lungs were congested. Emphysematoas
\n     bullae were  present on the surface
\n     of both the lungs.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     When the vaginal swabs collected from the deceased were
\nexamined  under\t microscope,  presence\tof  dead  non-motile
\nspermatozoa were observed by the doctor.\n<\/p>\n
     The High Court has reached the conclusion that fracture
\nof the\thyoid was  likely to  be a post-mortem injury caused
\nwhile the  dead body  was carried  in  a  rickshaw.  Learned
\nJudges have  advanced the following reasons for reaching the
\nsaid conclusion\t : (1)\tWitnesses who  were present  at\t the
\ninquest as  well as the investigating officer did not notice
\nany abrasion  or other\tinjury on the nick of the dead body;
\n(2) Dr.\t Trinadharao (PW-10)  admitted in  cross-examination
\nthat “if pressure is applied by fingers, only contusions are
\npossible bur not abrasions.” (3) PW-10 has further stated in
\nhis deposition\tthat if\t the fracture  on the hyoid bone was
\nante-mortem there would have been corresponding bleeding but
\nno such bleeding noted by the doctor during the autopsy. (4)
\nThe doctor  witness has\t stated\t that  it  is  possible\t for
\ncausing fracture  of the  hyoid bone  when a  dead  body  is
\ncarried in auto-rickshaw.\n<\/p>\n
     We cannot\tresist expressing our distress that the High
\nCourt has  chosen to advance fragile reasons to upset a well
\nreasoned conclusion  reached by\t the trial  court  that\t the
\ndeceased  was\tthrottled  to  death.  The  mere  fact\tthat
\nwitnesses present  at the  inquest had\tescaped noticing the
\nsmall abrasions\t on the neck of the dead body is too tenuous
\na ground  for holding  that such  abrasions would  have come
\ninto existence\tafter the  inquest was\theld overruling\t the
\ndefinite opinion  of the  medical man (who saw the injuries)
\nthat they were ante-mortem injuries. It is totally incorrect
\nto say\tthat no\t abrasion would\t be caused  if\tpressure  is
\napplied with fingers would quite possibly cause abrasions as
\nwell. Similarly\t the observation  of the  High Court that no
\nbleeding was  noticed at  the site  of the  fracture of\t the
\nhyoid bone  is not  factually correct  as PW-10 had noted in
\nthe post-mortem\t certificate that there was extravagation of
\nblood on both sides of the neck.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court has  adverted to vet another reason for
\nholding that  death  might  not\t have  been  caused  due  to
\nthrottling. The vomitted material found on the cot and mouth
\nof the\tdead body was not sent for chemical examination, and
\nhence the  High Court  concluded that  ” it is also possible
\nthat death  might  have\t been  caused  due  to\tasphyxia  by
\npoisoning.” We are disturbed very much as the High Court has
\noverlooked, if\tnot ignored, the evidence of Dr. Trinadharao
\n(PW-10)\t that\tviscera\t comprising   of  stomach  contents,
\nintestine, piece  of  lever  and  also\ta  kidney  had\tbeen
\nforwarded to  the chemical laboratory for analysis and PW-10
\nhad reserved  his final\t opinion till  he got  the result of
\nsuch  analysis.\t  When\the   later  received   the  chemical
\nexamination report  he pronounced his final opinion that the
\ndeath was  due to  asphyxia as no poison was detected in the
\nviscera. The report of the chemical examiner is available in
\nthe records.  Section 293 of the Code would enable the court
\nto use\tthe said  document  in\tevidence.  Inspite  of\tsuch
\nunassailable materials\tthe High  Court has  arrived at\t the
\nfinding that  “in the facts and circumstances of the case it
\ncannot be  ruled out  in its  entirety that  death  was\t not
\ncaused due to poisoning.”\n<\/p>\n
     One of  the circumstances\trelied on by the prosecution
\nis that respondent had confessed the guilt to PW-6 and PW-7.
\nIn other  words, prosecution  relied on\t the extra  judicial
\nconfession of  the respondent  spoken to  by  the  said\t two
\nwitnesses, they\t buttonholed the  respondent and  confronted
\nhim with  certain questions  pertaining to  the death of the
\ndeceased and then respondent had blurted out to them of what
\nhappened. Witnesses further deposed that respondent took out
\na letter and showed it to them. Witnesses thereupon took him
\nto the\tpolice station\twhere that letter was also produced.
\nPW-14 –\t Sub Inspector\tof Police  confirmed that  those two
\nwitnesses brought  the respondent  to the police station and
\nproduced Ext. P-13 letter.\n<\/p>\n
     Truth  of\t the  evidence\t of  PW-6  and\tPW-7  stands
\nvouchsafed by  Ext. P-13 letter as the same was proved to be
\na letter  written by  the deceased  to the respondent. PW-12
\nAssistant Director,  Forensic Science  Laboratory,  who\t was
\nalso a\tHandwriting Expert  examined the  handwriting on the
\nletter with  the admitted  handwriting of the deceased found
\nin some\t answer sheets\t(which\tpolice\tcollected  from\t the
\nPrincipal of  the School  where Satya  Vani studied – PW-13)
\nPW-12 gave  cogent reasons for his conclusion that both were
\nwritten by  the same  person. A\t reading of  the contents in
\nthat letter  admits of no doubt that it was addressed to the
\nrespondent in this case.\n<\/p>\n
     The aforesaid  extra judicial  confession was relied on
\nby the\ttrial court but the High Court did not act on it for
\ntwo reasons.  First is\ta seeming disparity between the time
\nof making  the confession  as spoken to by the witnesses and
\nthe time  mentioned by the police on the strength of station
\nrecords. The  second reason  is that the said extra judicial
\nconfession was\treduced to  writing as\tExt. P-7, inside the
\npolice station\tand hence  it is  hit by  Section 26  of the
\nEvidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  true that  in the  deposition PW-6 and PW-7 have
\nsaid that  it was  at 7\t A.M. that  the respondent  made the
\nconfession to  them. But the Sub Inspector said that accused
\nwas produced  in the  police station  at 7.30  P.M. We think
\nthat much should not have been made out of that disparity as
\nthere could be a possibility of making an error in recording
\nthe time A.M. for P.M. We say this because both PW-6 and PW-
\n7 uniformly said that they took the respondent to the police
\nstation situated  about 3  kilometers away.  As\t the  police
\nrecords show  that they produced him at 7030 P.M. it is only
\ninferential that  respondent would  have made the confession
\non the evening and not during morning hours. At any rated it
\nis not\tproper to  jettison an\totherwise  sturdy  piece  of
\nevidence of  extra judicial confession on the ground of such
\na rickety premise.\n<\/p>\n
     The other reasoning based on Section 26 of the Evidence
\nAct is\talso fallacious. It is true any confession made to a
\npolice officer\tis inadmissible\t under Section 25 of the Act
\nand that  ban is further stretched through Section 26 to the
\nconfession made\t to any\t other person  also if the confessor
\nwas  then   in\tpolice\tcustody.  Such\t“custody”  need\t not
\nnecessarily be\tpost arrest custody. The word “custody” used
\nin Section 26 is to be understood in pragmatic sense. If any
\naccused is  within the\tken of\tsurveillance of\t the  police
\nduring which  his movements  are restricted  then it  can be
\nregarded as  custodial surveillance  for the  purpose of the
\nSection. If  he makes  any confession  during that period to
\nany person be he not a police officer, such confession would
\nalso be\t hedged\t within\t the  banned  contours\toutlined  in
\nSection 26 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
     But the  confession made  by the respondent to PW-6 and
\nPW-7 was  not made  while he was anywhere near the precincts
\nof the\tpolice station\tor during  the surveillance  of\t the
\npolice. Though\tExt. P-7 would have been recorded inside the
\npolice station\tits contents were disclosed long before they
\nwere reduce  to writing.  We are  only\tconcerned  with\t the
\ninculpatory statement  which respondent had made to PW-6 and
\nPW-7 before they took him to the police station. So the mere
\nfact that the confession spoken to those witnesses was later
\nput in\tblack and  white is  no reason\tto cover it with the
\nwrapper of unadmissiblility. We find that the High Court has
\nwrongly sidelined the extra judicial confession.\n<\/p>\n
     The fact that body of (Satya Vani) was found on the cot
\ninside the  house  of  the  respondent\tis  a  very  telling
\ncircumstance against  him. Respondent owed a duty to explain
\nas to  how a  dead body\t which was  resultant of  a homicide
\nhappened to  be in  his house.\tIn the\tabsence of  any such
\nexplanation  from   him\t the   implication   of\t  the\tsaid
\ncircumstance is definitely adverse to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     High  Court  has  extricated  the\tappellant  from\t the
\nindictment of rape on the erroneous assumption that it would
\nhave been a consented copulation. Learned Judges have relied
\non two\tcircumstances in support of the said assumption. One
\nis that\t there was  no nail  mark on  the breast  or face or
\nthigh or  private  parts  of  the  deceased  for  indicating
\nresistance offered  by her  Second is  that PW-10 doctor did
\nnot notice  any hymen  for the\tdeceased. In that realm also
\nthe High  Court committed  serious  error  in  skipping\t the
\ncontents of Ext P-13 letter and also the injury on the right
\nside of\t the posterior\tlabia minora,  (we have mentioned it
\nsupra). of  course that\t injury by it self is not conclusive
\nproof of  resistance but it cannot be ignored altogether. In
\nExt. P-13 letter, she cautioned the respondent not to have a
\nleering on  her. She  deprecated in her letter the idea of a
\nmarried man  enjoying another  lady by\tterming it an act of
\n“grave sin”.  Further, in his extra judicial confession made
\nto PW-6\t and PW-7, respondent had said that he took the girl
\nby force  and kept  her on  the cot as he was long nurturing
\nthe lust  to enjoy  her. The  doctor had found fresh vaginal
\ntear on\t the fight side of the inner vaginal wall posterior.
\nThis injury  is indicative  of forcible\t sexual intercourse.
\nAccording to  the medical opinion also the presence of fresh
\nvaginal tear, showed that the deceased had been subjected to
\nsexual intercourse  prior to  her death.  The very fact that
\nthe  sexual   intercourse  was\t soon\tfollowed,   if\t not
\ncontemporaneous with,  by the  act of throttling is strongly
\nsuggestive of  a vehement  resistance offered  by the female
\nvictim.\n<\/p>\n
     We have absolutely no doubt that the above circumstance
\nare sufficient\tto reach the irresistible inference that she
\nwas ravished by the respondent despite her refusal.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court after considering the medical evidence,
\nwhile dealing with the question of rape opined:\n<\/p>\n
     “There is\tno  direct  evidence  to
\n     show that\tthe  accused  alone  had
\n     sexual intercourse\t with  her.  The
\n     deceased was aged 16 years.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We are  rather distressed on this comment. By using the
\nword “alone”  the High\tCourt almost  cast a  stigma on\t the
\nprosecutrix as\tif, apart  from the  appellant,\t there\twere
\nother persons  also who\t had sexual  intercourse  with\ther.
\nThere is  no basis  at all for such an assumption. There was
\nno warrant  for recording  such a  finding and if we may say
\nso, with  respect, the\tfinding is an irresponsible finding.
\nWe express  our strong\tdisapproval of\tthe approach  of the
\nHigh Court  and its casting a stigma on the character of the
\ndeceased porsecutrix.  Even if\tthe Curt  formed an opinion,
\nfrom the  absence of  hymen, that  the victim  had    sexual
\nintercourse prior to the time when she was subjected to rape
\nby the\tappellant, she\thad every  right to refuse to submit
\nherself to  sexual intercourse\tby  the\t appellant,  as\t she
\ncertainly was  not a  vulnerable object\t or prey  for  being
\nsexually assaulted  by anyone  and this position becomes all
\nthe more  clear from  the contents of the letter Ex. P-13 as
\nalready noticed.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefore,  conclude  that  the  High\tCourt  erred
\nsubstantially  in  upsetting  the  conviction  and  sentence
\npassed by  the sessions\t Judge supported by sound and sturdy
\nreasons. We,  therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the
\norder of  acquittal. We\t restore the conviction and sentence
\npassed on  the respondent\/accused  by the  trial court.\t The
\nbail bond  shall stand\tcancelled. The\trespondent shall  be
\ntaken into  custody forthwith  to undergo the remaining part
\nof the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
     Before parting  with the  case, we\t would like to point
\nout  that   the\t Courts\t  are\texpected   to\tshow   great
\nresponsibility while  trying an\t accused on charges of rape.
\nThey must  deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The
\nCourts should  examine the  broader probabilities  of a case
\nand not\t get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant
\ndiscrepancies in  the statement\t of the witnesses, which are
\nnot of a fatal nature to throw out allegations of rape. This
\nis all\tthe more  important because  of late  crime  against
\nwomen in  general and rape in particular is on the increase.
\nIt is  an irony that while we are celebrating woman`s rights
\nin all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour.
\nIt is a sad reflection and we must emphasise that the courts
\nmust  deal   with  rape\t cases\tin  particular\twith  utmost
\nsensitivity and\t appreciate the\t evidence in the totality of
\nthe background\tof the entire case and not in isolation. One
\nof us  (Dr. Anand  J.) has  observed in\t State of Punjab vs.
\nGurmit Singh and others<\/a> (1969) 2 SCC 384 thus :\n<\/p>\n
     ” The courts, therefore, shoulder a
\n     great responsibility  while  trying
\n     an accused on charges of rape. They
\n     must  deal\t with  such  cases  with
\n     utmost sensitivity.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We\t think\t it  is\t  appropriate  to   reiterate  those
\nobservations in this case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996 Author: Thomas Bench: A.S. Anand, K.T. Thomas PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: GANGULA SATYA MURTHY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/11\/1996 BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T THOMAS, J. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107350","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-15T23:30:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T23:30:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3092,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996\",\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T23:30:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-15T23:30:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996","datePublished":"1996-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T23:30:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996"},"wordCount":3092,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996","name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T23:30:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-gangula-satya-murthy-on-19-november-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya Murthy on 19 November, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107350","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107350"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107350\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}